health

Novavax hopes its COVID shot wins over FDA, vaccine holdouts

13 Comments
By LAURAN NEERGAARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


13 Comments
Login to comment

with about three-quarters of U.S. adults already vaccinated.

I presume the definition for "vaccinated" means 2 shots.

Only about half of vaccinated adults have gotten a booster.

I see, so 25% percent of US adults refused the booster.

Since the US adult population is about 260 million, it means that 65 million people have become "hesitant", adding to huge numbers that were hesitant from the start.

I would like to know why such a vast number of people have decided to say no thank you to these vaccines.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Waiting for this vaccine for my booster dose. I am a vaccine holdout in the sense that I don’t want a booster dose of the same vaccine that I got for my first two doses.

The Novavax vaccine can be a game changer around the world and now that SII is manufacturing it there will be no problems of scalability.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I would like to know why such a vast number of people have decided to say no thank you to these vaccines.

According the the best avaialable scientific data most people get adequate protection from the first doses, it is understandable that this make lots of people consider themselves safe enough, the same science also says people get an extra reduction of risk from a first booster.

Complacency is the most logical reason, it also causes a lot of other problems with chronic diseases that come from lifestyle choices, and the US is not exactly famous for people making the best decisions about their health either.

Waiting for this vaccine for my booster dose. I am a vaccine holdout in the sense that I don’t want a booster dose of the same vaccine that I got for my first two doses.

The "hope" of the manufacturers is that people that irrationally reject doses now will become rational enough to not reject their vaccine, but that is not a likely bet. It has been well described how the activation of intracellular pathogen recognition pathways is important for the protection offered by mRNA vaccines, the Novavax vaccine skips this, this would mean it is likely for the protection to mantained only for shorter time (hopefully not), or have lower efficacy, like the Sinopharm vaccine.

Add to that that it comes with the antivaxxer detested word "adjuvant" and is being purified from insect cells and you have plenty of excuses for people to reject it.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

@ Bronco: But this was what Raw Beer and yourself were waiting for isn’t it?

Nope.

I fought off Covid with sunshine, healthy food, exercise and abstinence from harmful chemicals.

2 ( +11 / -9 )

It has been well described how the activation of intracellular pathogen recognition pathways is important for the protection offered by mRNA vaccines, the Novavax vaccine skips this, this would mean it is likely for the protection to mantained only for shorter time (hopefully not), or have lower efficacy

We don’t get mRNA vaccines in my country. Compared to viral vector vaccines the Novovax has higher efficacy.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@ Bronco: But this was what Raw Beer and yourself were waiting for isn’t it?

It's been a while, but if I recall, I probably wrote that if I had to get a vaccine, I might consider Novavax over the current ones if fewer adverse effects are observed.

But I don't need to get a vax, and I don't want it. I've been doing just as Bronco has: "with sunshine, healthy food, exercise and abstinence from harmful chemicals"

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

I'm not a 'holdout'

The media always use the most disingenuous terms

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

I'm not a 'holdout'

The media always use the most disingenuous terms

Holdout means resisting something that is being offered, there is nothing disingenuous about it, it is even used frequently with pride. If the vaccine is being offered to you and you refuse it that means you are part of the vaccine holdouts.

In this case unfortunately it means rejecting a safe and effective health care measure that improves not only the chances of the person receiving it but also public health in general,

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Sounds experimental.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

After long delays, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to decide within weeks whether to authorize Novavax's vaccine. It’s late in the pandemic for a new choice, with about three-quarters of U.S. adults already vaccinated.

Hope this one is safe.

While none of the world’s COVID-19 vaccines have proved as strong against omicron, Glenn said lab tests show Novavax shots do trigger cross-protective antibodies.

No wonder people are refusing the 3rd and 4th shots.

Holdout means resisting something that is being offered, there is nothing disingenuous about it, it is even used frequently with pride. If the vaccine is being offered to you and you refuse it that means you are part of the vaccine holdouts.

That is not a medical term; it is just a layman's opinion.

In this case unfortunately it means rejecting a safe and effective health care measure that improves not only the chances of the person receiving it but also public health in general,

If there were statistical data to support this "claim" it might make it believable; but this is impossible because no such data exists and it is like saying one's Zodiac sign affects public health in general.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

No wonder people are refusing the 3rd and 4th shots.

Since vaccination lower the risk on the population for whom they are indicated this is still an irrational decision.

That is not a medical term; it is just a layman's opinion.

Precisely because this is not a medical term is why anybody can prove it is used correctly in the article by its definition.

If there were statistical data to support this "claim" it might make it believable; but this is impossible because no such data exists and it is like saying one's Zodiac sign affects public health in general.

This is the position of every medical and scientific authority on the topic, which makes your criticism obviously invalid, believing these insitutions (WHO, CDC, etc.) are all recommending a safe and effective health care measure without any data is obviously unbelievable and your example irrelevant. How many of those institutions say the zodiac sign affects public health in general?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Since vaccination lower the risk on the population for whom they are indicated this is still an irrational decision.

Just calling something irrational does not make it irrational, obviously. The fact you are not a medical professional makes your opinion just that--a non-medical professional opinion, and an overly broad generalizaiton that makes the mistake of not looking at the specifics of the issue at hand.

The CDC though, which is a medical authority doesn't think not getting a 3rd or 4th shot is irrational, as it only recommends it in certain cases:

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/s0328-covid-19-boosters.html

This is the position of every medical and scientific authority on the topic, which makes your criticism obviously invalid, believing these insitutions (WHO, CDC, etc.) are all recommending a safe and effective health care measure without any data is obviously unbelievable and your example irrelevant. How many of those institutions say the zodiac sign affects public health in general?

No statistical data still.

And you refer to WHO as an institution--which it is as an agency, but you mistakenly left out the fact that the CDC is a scientific institution, unlike the WHO. The difference is that the CDC is specifically involved in being the authority for health issues in a country, while the WHO is an organization that engages in many areas that are not directly related to health, and gives advice such as an insurance agency would.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Just calling something irrational does not make it irrational, obviously.

But providing the reasons to call it irrational makes it a perfectly valid conclusion, specially because you have been unable to disprove those reasons.

The fact you are not a medical professional 

Baseless imaginations you have are not facts, it is just you again breaking the rules of the site because you want your comment to be deleted because now you understand you can't disprove the arguments that prove covid vaccines are safe.

The CDC though, which is a medical authority doesn't think not getting a 3rd or 4th shot is irrational, as it only recommends it in certain cases:

That is why in my own comment there is a text explicictly saying so, "vaccination lower the risk on the population for whom they are indicated", saying otherwise is contradicting the CDC according to your own source.

No statistical data still

More like still believing all institutions of the world are acting without scientific data just because you want to believe it so, which makes no sense.

And you refer to WHO as an institution--which it is as an agency

As demonstrated repeatedly to you the WHO is a scientific authority in medical and scientific authority that other authorities recognize as valid, including the CDC. Pretending not to know that an agency is just an institution where power to reach a goal has been invested did not work the first time you did it, it still is not working now.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites